CPM poor signage - claim form

SlashDot

Hopefully this is (or getting towards) what I need to submit. Really appreciate the feedback to date and would welcome more before I send.

1505grandad

Amend para 2 global amount as per instructions in the thread:-

Everything shown in red is something that needs editing by you and changing to black font once you've done it - even the £160 if your case seeks £182.      DO NOT ADD THE COURT CLAIM AND LEGAL FEES TO THAT SUM - THE OBJECTION IS TO THE 'ADMIN/CONTRACTUAL COSTS' ONLY. 

YOUR FIGURE NEAR THE START WILL BE A WHOLE NUMBER.  USUALLY £160 (REMOVE THE BOLD).

Coupon-mad

This Claimant is claiming a global sum of £255.60. 

No, they are not. 
Please read the explanatory first post of the thread about that template...this detail is driving me bonkers.  Too many people are missing what I say about the £160 and missing the Appendix C, both of which are clearly explained in the first post of the thread that attaches the template link. 

You will of course have three Orders/Judgements as appendices when you email your defence to the CCBC.

Add a bit more detail here.  This doesn't tell me (or the Judge, more importantly) why the car was parked there, whether you admit to driving, why the car was there, what sort of car park it was, or what the contravention alleged, and how long the PPC photos show the car actually there (minutes?):

16.  The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay. The claimant had failed to maintain proper signage at the entrance to the site given that it had nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and in was in direct contrast with another larger sign implying the land owners operated the parking site.

SlashDot

1505grandad said:

Amend para 2 global amount as per instructions in the thread:-

Everything shown in red is something that needs editing by you and changing to black font once you've done it - even the £160 if your case seeks £182.      DO NOT ADD THE COURT CLAIM AND LEGAL FEES TO THAT SUM - THE OBJECTION IS TO THE 'ADMIN/CONTRACTUAL COSTS' ONLY. 

YOUR FIGURE NEAR THE START WILL BE A WHOLE NUMBER.  USUALLY £160 (REMOVE THE BOLD).

Ah yes, apologies - I did this after a long day at work.
The PCN and contractual costs are indeed £160. Presumably I do not include the interest they are claiming also?

Coupon-mad

No, just £160 because you are not objecting to interest (they have a potential right to that if they win).

Could someone please suggest how the heck my wording can be made clearer because I am being driven bonkers by people getting that wrong and asking about that £160 figure:

Everything shown in red is something that needs editing by you and changing to black font once you've done it - even the £160 if your case seeks £182.      DO NOT ADD THE COURT CLAIM AND LEGAL FEES TO THAT SUM - THE OBJECTION IS TO THE 'ADMIN/CONTRACTUAL COSTS' ONLY. 
YOUR FIGURE NEAR THE START WILL BE A WHOLE NUMBER.  USUALLY £160 (REMOVE THE BOLD).

What can I put to make that clearer?  I think it is...please tell me...

SlashDot

Hi @Coupon-mad. It could be because it doesn't say it on the template itself next to the figure in red. I can only speak for myself, but I rushed to open and edit the template when I should have digested the instructions in the forum first. 

Coupon-mad

OK, I see that, but the difficulty there is, guess what people will do...?!

Do I REALLY need to spoon-feed every aspect of the template to that extent?  People have their claim form in front of them; I don't.  I tell them the figure is ''usually £160'' (or £182).  Why are people changing it?

If I annotate it all over the place people will print the entire thing with red annotations.  I can't win.

SlashDot

Quite the conundrum. Looking at the post itself, maybe you could put the link further down to encourage people to read the instructions before opening? That'll probably start a different issue of "I CAN'T FIND THE LINK" lol

SlashDot

Coupon-mad said:

This Claimant is claiming a global sum of £255.60. 

No, they are not. 
Please read the explanatory first post of the thread about that template...this detail is driving me bonkers.  Too many people are missing what I say about the £160 and missing the Appendix C, both of which are clearly explained in the first post of the thread that attaches the template link. 

You will of course have three Orders/Judgements as appendices when you email your defence to the CCBC.

Add a bit more detail here.  This doesn't tell me (or the Judge, more importantly) why the car was parked there, whether you admit to driving, why the car was there, what sort of car park it was, or what the contravention alleged, and how long the PPC photos show the car actually there (minutes?):

16.  The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay. The claimant had failed to maintain proper signage at the entrance to the site given that it had nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and in was in direct contrast with another larger sign implying the land owners operated the parking site.

Thanks, it was a bit bare to say the least. New draft below if you wouldn't mind taking a look:

The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay whilst the driver (the Defendant) visited the convenience shop opposite the site as there was no on-street parking available. The car park is operated on land owned by the church next door and, at the time of the alleged offence, did not have any barrier at the entrance/exit. The Defendant had used this site for several years outside of business hours with no issue. After taking over parking management of the site, the Claimant failed to maintain proper signage at the single entrance/exit to the site given that it had nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and was in direct contrast with another much larger sign implying the land owners still operated the parking site. The contravention alleged not displaying a valid permit during the 13 minutes that the vehicle was observed as per the signage/permit. The closest sign to the Defendant on exiting the vehicle was approximately 8 metres away, below eye height, was written in too small text to be read from that distance and was behind the Defendant on exiting the vehicle.

SlashDot

I forgot to mention. I've admitted being the driver here, but have not done so to date. I think it makes more sense so that I can put more detail into the witness statement, along with photographic evidence.